Re: do not delete gnome-1
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 11:08:55AM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > And what if they never do the switch? We can't keep GNOME 1 forever.
> > If you cannot maintain them any longer, then you should orphan them.
> > This is always appropriate. In fact, it's necessary. When you cannot
> > maintain or do not wish to maintain a package, orphan it.
>
> I understand that I can orphan packages. GNOME 1 was superseded by
> GNOME 2, and GNOME 2 provides similar functionality, replacing GNOME 1.
> GNOME 1 was kept for a period of _transition_ from GNOME 1 to GNOME 2.
> When transitions are over, packages are removed. The GNOME transition
> is not eternal.
Alternatively, library packages are removed when they are no longer
required. It is not true that the GNOME 1 libraries are no longer required.
> Don't encourage people every old cruft to the QA group, it means more
> cruft stays in Debian. It is a per package decision.
Yes it is. Although you consider the GNOME 1 libraries to be cruft, the
packages that use them (like gnucash) are not cruft to their users
and developers.
> > Or, if you wish, continue to maintain it. All I'm saying is, don't
> > delete packages still in active use.
> This criteria is too simplistic.
No, I think your criteria is too simplistic. You want to remove the
packages simply because they are old. They are not obselete though.
> I don't care how slow gnucash development is. If 10000 packages made
> the switch from GNOME 1 to GNOME 2 _except_ gnucash, then to the hell
> with it. [..]
If someone is willing to maintain the old library packages (and Thomas
says that he is), then why not? Your argument about excessive number of
packages has some validity but generally in Debian we accept any
package that a developer is willing to maintain.
If you don't want to maintain GNOME 1 then you are free to walk away
from it, but you can't stop other people working on it.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>
Reply to: